English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If so, then 3000+ lives, and a trillion dollars later how did we benefit? Why are gas prices so high at the pumps?

Do you believe this?

2007-09-16 03:29:28 · 17 answers · asked by Tom S 7 in News & Events Current Events

17 answers

Of course it was for oil. The US don't care about most evil dictators in the world (even sponsoring some) and Iraq was nothing to with 9/11. So no other reasons.

2007-09-23 21:35:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I don't believe a word Greenspan says. He's an idiot. But it doesn't take a genius to understand what the Iraq war was all about. If this guy is so sharp, how come he waited this long to open his mouth?
It's disgusting to hear anyone praising him. When this guy was in power and had a real voice, why didn't he say anything then? Oh, that's right, he didn't have a book deal.

2007-09-23 18:08:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes.
1) Its to establish an American run Iraqi state. so "US Dollar" can be the reserve currency for the Oil Companies who are thinking of switching to the "Euro".
Thich would not be benefitial to the USA.

Think about it.. If iraq lost the war and surrendered, it would be an americanized country, run by USA & Bush. Iraq influences alot of the OIL companies. they'll tell the OPEC owners what to do with the oil. Go figure.
More to USA. Restrict it to China & Russia and some parts of europe, and they put the opposing countries in a "checkmate" figurativly speaking & hold a world Monopoly.

2) The prices are so high because, obviously, the US have not taken over iraq, and have not set up any form of democracy. So in actuality, they're making the oil traders "angry"

3) Iraq war was on terror, and nuclear weapons.
Sadaam was killed, ok. Terror war is over.

Now Nuclear weapons? North korea has them, Iran, Russia, China, all arch-enemies of the usa politically, but they choose Iraq to have war.
No weapons or facilities were ever found.

4) To free innocent people in iraq?
Africa/asia and eastern europe have people getting killed at random. Why don't the USA go in,save them and setup democracy?
No Oil market to take over.

Two birds with one stone!
Bush wants the world to think he is aiming for the little bird, when really, hes aiming for the Falcon.

2007-09-19 00:10:09 · answer #3 · answered by AckiLeeZ 4 · 0 1

Greenspan is a man of knowledge...it would be more
foolish of the lesser informed people such as myself
to rebuke what he says on such matters..and what you
say about the cost is true also, but, the war could have
been 'for the oil'....yet, the war isn't over and it didn't
turn out as planned. Oil from there is costing more than
we want to pay..but have to pay!

2007-09-24 01:26:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I trust Mr. Greenspan for financial advice. It is his opinion that we went into Iraq for oil. He does not possess any personal knowledge that, that was the reason. He is not on any of the committees that would have been making the decision to go to war. So, no I do not agree with Mr. Greenspan.

2007-09-16 04:12:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Greenspan is one of the most credible persons at all levels of business and government in the US. His position helps add credibility to the belief that our invasion was for oil. The reason prices continue to increase relate to a phenomenon called "peak oil".

But don't forget that profits are also being reaped by GE and many other large corporations in supporting the military. War also adds a smoke screen that allows for profiteering through financial trickery in a pentagon system that has been declared un-auditable for many years. Even above the board, corporations have provided minimal services for high costs.

This is a big story! I have ongoing respect for Mr. Greenspan.

2007-09-16 04:08:05 · answer #6 · answered by Skeptic 7 · 1 3

A) confident, he suggested it to sell books. B) He suggested it became into unlucky that because of the fact of politics, the administration can no longer come out and admit that the conflict is approximately oil to a pair volume. C) He additionally suggested that, without the conflict, oil could be at one hundred thirty five+ funds a barrel. In different words, he became into declaring what he sees because of the fact the political actuality of the situatiion, no longer making a cost judgment on the advisability of the conflict.

2016-11-14 14:20:44 · answer #7 · answered by crandall 4 · 0 0

Yes. It's for oil, but to line the pockets of oil investors. It's not to "bring down the prices". They want the prices to go up as high as the market will bear. As long as we pay for it, it will continue to go up. GW Bush is an oil man. He knows there is MONEY to be made in oil. He's just setting himself and his buddies up for after his term in office. (Ken Lay is somewhere out there waiting to rake it in.)

2007-09-23 13:24:20 · answer #8 · answered by alurt_rekoob 4 · 0 0

Yes. Greenspan is one of the worlds brainiest persons!

2007-09-22 16:44:44 · answer #9 · answered by secret society 6 · 0 0

Most Definatly

2007-09-23 05:26:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers